Future Transit System Ideas - Ottawa/Gatineau | Fantasy

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Jason Slaughter was holding Toronto up to the standards of London, England, where he had just moved back from. And in his videos, he'll often say that Toronto does have areas which are livable without a car. Heck, he made an entire video about Riverdale as a model suburb for North America.

The inner Toronto suburbs that Slaughter does complain about? They have sub 10 min frequencies (denoted as "FS" for "Frequent Service" on schedules) on plenty of routes at rush. Midday and even later evenings, most non-major routes are usually no more than 15-20 min headways throughout the day. If you're on a major avenue, you don't even bother looking at schedule. I'm sure there's the odd exception (before your gotchya itch triggers), but you never wait long for a bus or streetcar virtually anywhere in the TTC's service area.

So if London, UK is the standard we're going to use (because that was Slaughter's bar), and Toronto failed it, just imagine what he'd say about Ottawa where 15-20 min headways all day for buses (and is barely the peak service standard) is considered out of reach and unrealistic, transit priority is an entirely foreign concept, but transit advocates dream of multiple multi-billion dollar metros instead. I'm fairly sure he'd lump us in with London....the one he grew up in....

His entire philosophy boils down to walkability and transit priority. Does that sound like Ottawa to you? Toronto ain't perfect (far from it), but they are way ahead of us on that front. I'd actually love for us to catch up and I advocate for ideas in that direction.

And just cause I'm a fan, I'll post that video where he emphasizes walkability and transit priority again:

• Video Link

When I said we should not be using Toronto's example, I was referring the recent (last 20 years) rapid transit projects that are often over or under built, or in certain cases, they manage to do both at the same time. I then referred to Vancouver as a better example of how to build right-sized rapid transit.

You somehow spined my comment as me saying that Ottawa is perfect, Toronto transit is terrible in everyway and Ottawa should do absolutely nothing to improve transit other than fantasy (and this is a fantasy transit thread) heavy rail subway lines. The problem is not that you disagree or criticize other people's ideas, it's that you create a false narratives of our big picture ideas. We are advocating for better bus transit and certain surface rail lines, but pretending like we're Rob Ford "subways! subways! subways!" My light-metro fantasy only accounts for a fraction of my overall vision for transit in Ottawa. Thirty kilometers (Bank-Rideau-Montreal-Cumberland) out of a hundred+ between automated bus loops in Kanata, BRT along Baseline and Heron, the Carling streetcar and other bus priority measures on main arteries like St. Laurent and Hunt Club.

From everything I've heard, Toronto does have a really good bus system. We should, in fact, follow their lead when it comes to building a bus system. Vancouver as well has great bus infrastructure with its B-Lines. Ottawa needs to improve its bus system.

As for Toronto's streetcars, they seem to provide an important mid-capacity service. I've heard stories of very efficient lines, and others of lineups of streetcars stuck in traffic. I wish Ottawa would have done the same and kept at least part of its legacy streetcars however, I don't believe rebuilding it is a good investment. Better to improve the bus system as much as we can, and upgrade to an appropriate rail system when warranted. Many other routes should be perpetually fine with bus priority, BRT-lite or something similar.

As for the Riverdale video, I watched it two weeks ago. Great video. Ottawa has very similar neighbourhoods, traditional main streets built around (in the case of Ottawa, former) streetcar lines surrounded by modestly sized homes on narrow tree lined streets and a mix of housing. Ever hear of Westboro, Wellington West, the Glebe and Beechwood?

In terms of built form, Ottawa is nothing more than a smaller version of Toronto. A CBD surrounded by great 15-minute neighbourhoods followed by mixed-bag mid-century neighbourhoods before hitting the layer of ultra car dependent, big box store, depressing repetitive, terrible suburbs. Toronto's built for is in no way better than Ottawa's.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

That's my thinking as well. I'd like to see Bank get redone to allow for wider sidewalks so restaurants can set up patios in the summer months. Maybe something like the Grande Allee could make road space more flexible, where parking lanes can be repaved with interlocking stone that allow parking near businesses who insist on having it, and putting up bollards in front of restaurants to provide space for both patios and pedestrians in the summer months.

Of course, we could get rid of cars entirely and put a tram on those 2 lanes instead, but as you said, I can't see businesses or Glebe residents signing off on that, and they're the two biggest stakeholder groups in the area.

I've always been a huge fan of Grande Allée's set-up. I wish we had some of that in Ottawa and Gatineau.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is what Eglinton looks like between Mount Pleasant and Yonge:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/Au494EiUYoLewnHf9

Give me a target date on when you think Bank will have this kind of density. I'll make it easy. Just count it out in lifetimes.

They have more density along Eglinton than most of our downtown core. And yet they only partially tunneled the Crosstown and only built 60m stations.

When do you think Bank will reach this density?

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2490...7i16384!8i8192

Or this density?

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6598...8i8192!5m1!1e2

Or maybe this density?

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5610...8i8192!5m1!1e2

Or better yet, this density? That massive deep bored underground station was a well worth it for 3,440 riders per day. There is just no way they could have fit an elevated or surface rail on that narrow street, or anywhere else within the vicinity. Toronto knows how to build transit in the most efficient way possible.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7840...8i8192!5m1!1e2

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I've always been a huge fan of Grande Allée's set-up. I wish we had some of that in Ottawa and Gatineau.

Indeed. So why push for design and policies that don't build this?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

When do you think Bank will reach this density?

https://www.google.com/maps/@49.2490...7i16384!8i8192

Or this density?

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6598...8i8192!5m1!1e2

Or maybe this density?

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5610...8i8192!5m1!1e2

Yes. Eglinton has some spots of moderate density. But that doesn't come close to the idea that $3B worth of investment on two transit lines (including a terminus) should serve this in Ottawa:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/nZPLLvi1bxnKRBYc8

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Or better yet, this density? That massive deep bored underground station was a well worth it for 3,440 riders per day. There is just no way they could have fit an elevated or surface rail on that narrow street, or anywhere else within the vicinity. Toronto knows how to build transit in the most efficient way possible.

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.7840...8i8192!5m1!1e2

Yes. We shouldn't build large underground stations. I agree. In fact, I think we should avoid building grade separated stations as much as possible. Because they are expensive and offer little in the way of return. We'll have our own version of similar low ridership stations too. Imagine how many riders Leitrim will draw in? The context of 407 station is actually better than Trim. At least 407 has a feeder GO bus network.

For the record, this is exactly why the TTC never wanted to extend past York U. By your logic, if the province made funding for a Bank St subway conditional on serving Greely and forced a massive station there, it would be Ottawa's fault?

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes. Eglinton has some spots of moderate density. But that doesn't come close to the idea that $3B worth of investment on two transit lines (including a terminus) should serve this in Ottawa:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/nZPLLvi1bxnKRBYc8

I had more than Eglinton on there. I had Cambie Street in Vancouver served by the Canada Line, all moderate to low density for the 7 or so kilometers. Duffering Station in Toronto, served by the heavy rail Bloor-Danforth along a corridor that looks a lot like Bank north of the Rideau Canal. The third was Laval's de la Concorde station, a gigantic underground complex in low density suburbs with little ridership.

It was to show Vancouver's right-sized rapid transit, a Toronto subway line that serves something similar to Bank and a ridiculously overbuilt Montreal Metro station.

That one you posted, South Keys, looks a lot like Vaughan Metropolitan Centre before the subway.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes. We shouldn't build large underground stations. I agree. In fact, I think we should avoid building grade separated stations as much as possible. Because they are expensive and offer little in the way of return. We'll have our own version of similar low ridership stations too. Imagine how many riders Leitrim will draw in? The context of 407 station is actually better than Trim. At least 407 has a feeder GO bus network.

For the record, this is exactly why the TTC never wanted to extend past York U. By your logic, if the province made funding for a Bank St subway conditional on serving Greely and forced a massive station there, it would be Ottawa's fault?

I agree, much of Toronto's rapid transit is built on political motivation and not on needs, logic of a solid business case, which is why I've said that Toronto is a bad example of how to build rapid transit. I can guarantee that a Canada Line sized stations at Lansdowne or Somerset would get higher ridership than Highway 407's cathedral to throwing money away.

Highway 407 reminds me of Bowesville and Leitrim as well, built in empty fields. Highway 407 could have been built in a trench, at grade (still with a proper exclusive RoW) or elevated. They went for the most expensive option, which likely cost over $100 million. Bowesville and Leitrim will probably come to $10-$15 million and I bet they'll have a similar or slightly higher ridership. In any case, one of them could have been a future infill. We did not need both.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes. Eglinton has some spots of moderate density. But that doesn't come close to the idea that $3B worth of investment on two transit lines (including a terminus) should serve this in Ottawa:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/nZPLLvi1bxnKRBYc8

To be fair, the new official plan hopes to (eventually) turn South Keys into TOD node (or whatever the word they use to call it is).
Same with Billings Bridge.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

From everything I've heard, Toronto does have a really good bus system. We should, in fact, follow their lead when it comes to building a bus system. Vancouver as well has great bus infrastructure with its B-Lines. Ottawa needs to improve its bus system.

As for Toronto's streetcars, they seem to provide an important mid-capacity service. I've heard stories of very efficient lines, and others of lineups of streetcars stuck in traffic. I wish Ottawa would have done the same and kept at least part of its legacy streetcars however, I don't believe rebuilding it is a good investment. Better to improve the bus system as much as we can, and upgrade to an appropriate rail system when warranted. Many other routes should be perpetually fine with bus priority, BRT-lite or something similar.

As for the Riverdale video, I watched it two weeks ago. Great video. Ottawa has very similar neighbourhoods, traditional main streets built around (in the case of Ottawa, former) streetcar lines surrounded by modestly sized homes on narrow tree lined streets and a mix of housing. Ever hear of Westboro, Wellington West, the Glebe and Beechwood?

In terms of built form, Ottawa is nothing more than a smaller version of Toronto. A CBD surrounded by great 15-minute neighbourhoods followed by mixed-bag mid-century neighbourhoods before hitting the layer of ultra car dependent, big box store, depressing repetitive, terrible suburbs. Toronto's built for is in no way better than Ottawa's.

You're right about this. There are huge swaths of Toronto where the built form is no better than what we have here. I also think that Toronto is a bad comparator for Ottawa given that the entire city is literally one big grid, which makes it far easier to serve with buses than most cities. It does a reasonable job at that, but it made some major missteps, like building massive underground bus transfer stations in an era when it was making almost no investment elsewhere. They are marginally more convenient, but definitely not an example of getting bang for your transit buck.

In terms of streetcars, I think the quality of the transit can be summed up as follows: streetcars with a dedicated right of way like Spadina and St. Clair are quite effective; streetcars running in mixed traffic like Queen or (most of) King are horrendously slow. Not a clear win for Toronto.

As for Riverdale, I know it well. First, its primary transit is a subway line, so I'm not sure that it demonstrates anything about the effectiveness of surface transit. Secondly, travel times from there to downtown are not great. Most people have the choice of taking the subway west and making a transfer at the perpetually overcrowded Yonge-Bloor station, or taking a streetcar down Broadview, which runs in mixed traffic and is very, very slow. In terms of built form, the Danforth is a 4-lane arterial commuting route that is mostly lined by lowrise buildings. As a community main street, it doesn't hold a candle to Bank St. in the Glebe or Wellington West.

As someone who has lived both places, I'm with you - Toronto is not where I'd generally look for cutting edge transit ideas that are applicable to Ottawa.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

To be fair, the new official plan hopes to (eventually) turn South Keys into TOD node (or whatever the word they use to call it is).
Same with Billings Bridge.

High density node. Sure. But usually when you're aiming two grade separated lines at a place, it's a whole new CBD. Not a TOD node with some condos and a ground floor Starbucks.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

As someone who has lived both places, I'm with you - Toronto is not where I'd generally look for cutting edge transit ideas that are applicable to Ottawa.

Even if you don't want to use Toronto (which I think is debatable and getting way too simplified in this discussion), the ideas being put forward here would be bizarre by the standards of most cities outside North America.

How many European cities these days, would say, "Well, it'll be tough to get residents to give up roadspace so we just need to up the budget by a billion Euros and bury and or elevate,"?

If you showed anybody from Europe or Asia, Montreal Rd and told them LRT on the street was insufficient, they'd probably ask you what you were smoking.

This is my criticism here. There's no spectrum of solutions. You're either getting a bus that runs every 30 mins or a metro. And the lines aren't actually considering likely origin-destination pairs. Instead, the goal is to make sure a whole bunch of them are connected. And of course, favorite corridors have to be prioritized, even if they have substantial overlap with an existing catchment.

I also think a lot of this, comes from the commuter mindset. It's easy to favour a subway or el train when you think of going from South Keys to downtown, using Bank. If you think about daily errands on Bank, that perspective changes. Ditto on Montreal.

We could argue that there's not much cost to bunch a nerds debating on a forum. But I always fear is that this mentality actually does filter through and the focus on gadgetbahning our way to good transit is forestalling initiative and investment that could actually deliver for riders today. For example, if there was a vision of eventually building LRT on Montreal, would they have designed the street differently or done a better job setting aside bus lanes? Likewise on Bank today?

Will add too, that this is also substantially impacting the development of the city. All that discussion of the "missing middle"? It's much easier to build that stuff if bus lanes and tramways are being built everywhere. But if all you build are subways, all you're going to get are high density nodes of shoebox condos. So the question, what do you want Ottawa to look like in 30 years? A rather even moderately dense city with lots of duplexes and low rise apartments? Or an advanced version of what we have today? Lots of SFH and then clusters of condos near stations? Toronto is actually learning from their mistake on this one. Everyone talks about the LRTs they are building. But they actually built a whole bunch of bus lanes on major avenues too. Specifically to facilitate this kind of development. Yet, we're jonesing for more 80s style nodal development.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

High density node. Sure. But usually when you're aiming two grade separated lines at a place, it's a whole new CBD. Not a TOD node with some condos and a ground floor Starbucks.

I would point to Vancouver's Commercial-Broadway station. Two transit lines with a max capacity of 24,000 phpd each. There's never been any TOD in the nearly 20 years it's been around. We're only now seeing some TOD proposals. Ridership is almost exclusively from transfers, which makes it the third busiest on the system.

South Keys, should a Bank subway ever be built, would be the crossroads of two lines with capacities of 15,000 phpd and a 5,000 phpd (max if we can get 6 minute frequencies on Trillium through double tracking). The station would be half the size of Commercial-Broadway for less than half the total capacity.

[lrt's friend]

We always have to look at our own city to address our needs. We can look at other cities for similar examples that work or don't but we need to focus on Ottawa itself. Density is not everything as bus shuttles can bring a lot of traffic in from the hinterlands. Even Leitrim station will gain much more traffic once the Trillium Line opens as it will serve Findlay Creek, and Bowesville will serve Greely, even if from a distance.

How do bring better transit closer to more people? In the long run, the Confederation Line is not enough especially if we want to re-animate our downtown to be our number one public meeting place instead of the big box centres scattered around the suburbs that offer nothing beyond retail. Ottawa's downtown has potential but has lost so much over the last decades and even now, continues to lose little things again and again. In some respects, we have gone backwards, because the Confederation Line offers less access (or less easy access) from various parts of the city than the Transitways. We need to broaden easy access. Phase 2 and 3 help a lot but it does not do a good job southward at all.

This is why the Bayview transfer is not enough, Every transfer is a pain, even rail to rail. Gatineau knows that and that is why they insist on bringing LRT downtown and not use Bayview. Bayview will offer very little even in the long-term. 65 storey condo towers are not a transit destination. Why does Ottawa accept less than Gatineau?

In every case, new surface LRT in Toronto has required broad streets. It won't work with narrow streets. That is a 19th century concept, surface trams on narrow streets. That is Bank Street and the Trillium Line does not offer the total solution because it runs away from our key urban neighbourhoods. It serves a purpose as it runs through various current and future transit destinations but not our number one destination, downtown.

If we want our airport connection to work well, we need it to connect directly to downtown. No, our airport is not as big as the big three cities, but still to invest so much and deliver so little convenience is still a terrible shame.

Larry O'Brien was correct that we need to build transit from the city centre outward and that great cities have you walk down to transit. We need to have a little more ambition than all future spending is focused on the distant suburbs. I am all for finishing the Confederation Line in a reasonable time line but we also need to go back to that same concept, to build proper segregated transit from downtown, this time in the opposite direction. In the long-term this will make Ottawa a better place.

Nobody is suggesting building subways everywhere. What is being suggested is that there be good, and fast transit in each of the key directions from downtown, east, west, north and south. Bank Street is too congested and confined to offer that possibility for a surface route. It didn't work in the 1940s. It won't work in the 2020s or 2030s either especially as intensification increases on the corridor if only in certain pockets. Secondary surface transit are sufficient on pretty well every other corridor, notwithstanding reassessing another inexpensive diesel O-Train on the underused cross-town railway. In Toronto, all new LRT lines are on broad streets including the Hurontario Line in Mississauga and all are secondary corridors, but they would be nuts to build the Ontario Line on surface streets as looking forward, they know that they need another trunk transit line. Building a tramway on Bank Street is shortsighted. If it is successful as suggested, it will have an end of life point that we know we will not be able to justify rebuilding later.

We should never compare ourselves to Hamilton or Kitchener-Waterloo. The motivation in those cities is different and we have all seen the political issues with the Hamilton line since it will not be a fast service. Both municipal and provincial politicians know this and this is why there is not overwhelming and continuous political support.

[lrt's friend]

This is my criticism here. There's no spectrum of solutions. You're either getting a bus that runs every 30 mins or a metro. And the lines aren't actually considering likely origin-destination pairs. Instead, the goal is to make sure a whole bunch of them are connected. And of course, favorite corridors have to be prioritized, even if they have substantial overlap with an existing catchment.

Nobody is arguing for a subway on Baseline or Carling. We know they are secondary transit corridors. Intermediate solutions are reasonable on secondary corridors.

The argument for Bank is to make it the trunk line going southward, knowing that downtown is the top transit destination in the city.

Nobody would say that Riverside South and Bayview or South Keys and Hurdman are top origin and destination pairs. Both are dictated by transit planners as a required transfer, nothing more.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Even if you don't want to use Toronto (which I think is debatable and getting way too simplified in this discussion), the ideas being put forward here would be bizarre by the standards of most cities outside North America.

How many European cities these days, would say, "Well, it'll be tough to get residents to give up roadspace so we just need to up the budget by a billion Euros and bury and or elevate,"?

If you showed anybody from Europe or Asia, Montreal Rd and told them LRT on the street was insufficient, they'd probably ask you what you were smoking.

This is my criticism here. There's no spectrum of solutions. You're either getting a bus that runs every 30 mins or a metro. And the lines aren't actually considering likely origin-destination pairs. Instead, the goal is to make sure a whole bunch of them are connected. And of course, favorite corridors have to be prioritized, even if they have substantial overlap with an existing catchment.

I also think a lot of this, comes from the commuter mindset. It's easy to favour a subway or el train when you think of going from South Keys to downtown, using Bank. If you think about daily errands on Bank, that perspective changes. Ditto on Montreal.

We could argue that there's not much cost to bunch a nerds debating on a forum. But I always fear is that this mentality actually does filter through and the focus on gadgetbahning our way to good transit is forestalling initiative and investment that could actually deliver for riders today. For example, if there was a vision of eventually building LRT on Montreal, would they have designed the street differently or done a better job setting aside bus lanes? Likewise on Bank today?

Will add too, that this is also substantially impacting the development of the city. All that discussion of the "missing middle"? It's much easier to build that stuff if bus lanes and tramways are being built everywhere. But if all you build are subways, all you're going to get are high density nodes of shoebox condos. So the question, what do you want Ottawa to look like in 30 years? A rather even moderately dense city with lots of duplexes and low rise apartments? Or an advanced version of what we have today? Lots of SFH and then clusters of condos near stations? Toronto is actually learning from their mistake on this one. Everyone talks about the LRTs they are building. But they actually built a whole bunch of bus lanes on major avenues too. Specifically to facilitate this kind of development. Yet, we're jonesing for more 80s style nodal development.

I don't disagree with your points. I think there is quite a bit of common ground here. No doubt that some things that Toronto has done are worth considering. And I don't think any one would argue with your Montreal Rd. point (though Rideau may be another story). Agreed that the options are not binary, and that to the extent you overbuild one corridor, you are sacrificing rapid-transit coverage elsewhere. There is definitely a balance to be had.

That said, I would note that lots of western European cities in Ottawa's size range do have subways. Whether they went underground to preserve heritage, save road space or for other reasons, they made decisions along the lines of what people are suggesting here. Granted, European cities typically started with greater density, but there are plenty of subway lines that serve areas that aren't any denser than Bank St.

I'm not firmly in the Bank St. subway camp, but I do see the merits, at least to Billings Bridge, and I'm not speaking from a commuter perspective. Bank is Ottawa's primary N-S corridor, and I think that people tend to underestimate the intensification potential along the entire corridor. The projects planned or underway in the Glebe and the south end of Centretown pretty clearly show that signficant intensification is possible, and the potential south of Billings Bridge is huge.

I also tend to agree with those arguing that a surface LRT line down the narrow Bank right of way would be very disruptive to the commercial areas in particular. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any pure transit mall of that length anywhere that has been successful. If we were going to go with a surface route, I'd definitely prefer that transit-only hours would be limited to peak periods. That would be at the cost of the "rapid" part of rapid transit, so I'm not sure whether it makes sense.

For this corridor (Bank from downtown to South Keys), which includes Lansdowne's unique capacity requirements, I can see a cost-benefit analysis that justifies grade separation.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by phil235

I don't disagree with your points. I think there is quite a bit of common ground here. No doubt that some things that Toronto has done are worth considering. And I don't think any one would argue with your Montreal Rd. point (though Rideau may be another story). Agreed that the options are not binary, and that to the extent you overbuild one corridor, you are sacrificing rapid-transit coverage elsewhere. There is definitely a balance to be had.

Maybe, I'm just a realist. I don't see anything getting built on Bank at all the way things are going. Or for that matter on Rideau-Montreal. To me LRTs are a somewhat lower cost way to get something actually done in our lifetimes. Do we all really wanna still be here in 2050 railfanning about a future Bank St. subway? Or would you rather ride a tram on it in the 2040s?

On Rideau, I've regularly said it should be tunneled, a la Eglinton Crosstown. I've said it should run from Rideau station to Montreal station with a tunnel till St-Laurent and in-median running east of St-Laurent.

Originally Posted by phil235

That said, I would note that lots of western European cities in Ottawa's size range do have subways. Whether they went underground to preserve heritage, save road space or for other reasons, they made decisions along the lines of what people are suggesting here. Granted, European cities typically started with greater density, but there are plenty of subway lines that serve areas that aren't any denser than Bank St.

Different context. Denser cities. Not many linear corridors. And built at a time when subways were far, far cheaper. They have also kept continuously building (which we don't do here in North America) which keeps cost low. They also have far lower car ownership rates. So a city of a million over there might have the same transit ridership as Toronto or Montreal or here, and will therefore need the network. But even in many of these cities, surface LRT is seeing a huge resurgence, as they discover it's cheaper to just repurpose streets for transit than build expensive tunnels or elevated guideways.

Originally Posted by phil235

I'm not firmly in the Bank St. subway camp, but I do see the merits, at least to Billings Bridge, and I'm not speaking from a commuter perspective. Bank is Ottawa's primary N-S corridor, and I think that people tend to underestimate the intensification potential along the entire corridor. The projects planned or underway in the Glebe and the south end of Centretown pretty clearly show that signficant intensification is possible, and the potential south of Billings Bridge is huge.

Is it actually Ottawa's primary N-S corridor or is that just emotional attachment? The way I see it, Bronson/Airport Parkway carries way more cars. The Trillium Line carries way more passengers. It would require billions in both public spending and private development to make Bank the "primary" N-S corridor in reality.

Originally Posted by phil235

I also tend to agree with those arguing that a surface LRT line down the narrow Bank right of way would be very disruptive to the commercial areas in particular. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any pure transit mall of that length anywhere that has been successful.

Pedestrianization anywhere is going to be disruptive. The question is one of whether that disruptions leaves the corridor and all of us better off. There is sa place I've been to that comes to mind as somewhat close to Bank: Queen St, Oxford, UK. I thought it was actually alright. And they do it with buses.

Explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Street,_Oxford

Originally Posted by phil235

If we were going to go with a surface route, I'd definitely prefer that transit-only hours would be limited to peak periods. That would be at the cost of the "rapid" part of rapid transit, so I'm not sure whether it makes sense.

Yeah. At that point, I'd argue just build the subway. No point building something half-assed. You'll note that I'm not arguing for LRT in mixed traffic for most of Bank. If there's no way to close Bank to traffic. Build the subway and live with extra billions that have to be spent.

Originally Posted by phil235

For this corridor (Bank from downtown to South Keys), which includes Lansdowne's unique capacity requirements, I can see a cost-benefit analysis that justifies grade separation.

I really don't get the fascination with imagining Lansdowne as a huge trip generator which drives transit requirements. Sports arenas don't drive peak flow which is what drives most transit planning. And they somehow manage to fill up Lansdowne with buses today. Presumably trams and buses in their own lanes would be alright in the future.

[Aylmer]

Originally Posted by phil235

I also tend to agree with those arguing that a surface LRT line down the narrow Bank right of way would be very disruptive to the commercial areas in particular. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of any pure transit mall of that length anywhere that has been successful.

The transit mall portion of Granville Street in Vancouver is arguably the only really successful part of the street. Which makes sense - it's the one part of the street with sidewalks wide enough for good street trees and patios, and which has few enough vehicles to be able to cross easily on foot between blocks.

If we were going to go with a surface route, I'd definitely prefer that transit-only hours would be limited to peak periods. That would be at the cost of the "rapid" part of rapid transit, so I'm not sure whether it makes sense.

I think this is an important point. There's a lot of grey between "all traffic all the time" and "no traffic at any time". You could put in place peak hour or daytime restrictions to ensure that buses are always flowing unimpeded down the street. These are things which could be trialed for a few months at the cost of just a bit of paint and signs.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I think this is an important point. There's a lot of grey between "all traffic all the time" and "no traffic at any time". You could put in place peak hour or daytime restrictions to ensure that buses are always flowing unimpeded down the street. These are things which could be trialed for a few months at the cost of just a bit of paint and signs.

This is a good point. They could actually do transit priority and bus lanes on Bank today. We could see how much local ridership there actually is today. And if everybody hates it, shutting it down in a year.

[Truenorth00]

Here's my really radical idea.

Connect McArthur to Laurier with a bridge or tunnel. Make that the main traffic crossing into the core. Then we don't to tunnel a Rideau-Montreal LRT at all. 1 lane of traffic and 1 lane of tram in each direction. Possibly even no lanes of traffic in some parts.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

The transit mall portion of Granville Street in Vancouver is arguably the only really successful part of the street. Which makes sense - it's the one part of the street with sidewalks wide enough for good street trees and patios, and which has few enough vehicles to be able to cross easily on foot between blocks.

I was thinking of Granville St. and was trying to remember the details. It's a street that has definitely had its ups and downs over the years. I recall that the transit portion is roughly 10 blocks or so. Wouldn't that part of the street be more comparable to Bank St. downtown than to Bank through the Glebe.

As for Queen St. in Oxford, I was there once 15 years ago. My recollection is that the pedestrian portion of the street is essentially the heart of the city. I do remember that Oxford did a really good job of directing drivers to lots on the outskirts and getting them onto transit before they enter the urban area.

[Truenorth00]

I'll go back to what I said. This comes down to what kind of city one wants 30 to 40 years from now. I want one that is much more European in feel (for lack of a better term), with lots of moderate density and very high walkability.

I get that we had to build a long haul metro network to replace the Transitway. But I think that's the most metro capacity that Ottawa will need for a lifetime. Maybe improvements to Trillium Line. There now needs to a much higher focus on all those secondary corridors and building them up to support medium density and walkable neighbourhoods. And all of this is going to happen in an era of radical change in how we work, study, etc.

I think doubling down on massively expensive grade separated transit yields two results. First, it most likely won't get anything built on corridors that people care about in this forum. Sticker shock alone will ensure that (just imagine the reaction to a $2-3B subway proposal for Bank). Next, if it does get built, it won't actually transform much of the city. It perpetuates the idea of OC Transpo as a commuter service for 7-3 public servants who live in the burbs (we have examples in this very thread of people who refuse to take transit because of two transfers), and will double down on transit oriented development meaning shoebox condos with RLA cladding. I believe that Ottawa both deserves and can do better.